Hundreds of thousands of biological and chemical tests on Americans by the United States Government

.

• A 1994 United States Senate Report, entitled "Is military research hazardous to veterans health? Lessons spanning a half century," detailed the United States' Department of Defense practice of experimenting on animal and human subjects, often without a latter's knowledge or consent...Chemical_warfare#United_States_Senate_Report

• Operation Whitecoat was the name given to a secret operation carried out by US Army during 1954-1973, which included conducting medical experiments on volunteers nicknamed as ‘White Coats’. The volunteers provided by Seventh-day Adventist Church participated in the research by their own consent... Operation Whitecoat

In the Nuremberg Medical Trial, the defense tried to show that there was no difference between what the Nazi doctors did and what U.S. doctors did in Stateville Prison, Joliet, Ill., by experimenting with a malaria vaccine on prisoners. In rebuttal, prosecutors summoned Andrew Ivy, a medical researcher and vice president of the University of Illinois at Chicago in charge of the medical school and its hospitals...Ivy...asked Illinois Gov. Dwight Green to form an ad hoc committee...That committee never met, yet Ivy went to Nuremberg and testified that the committee issued a report, known as the Green report. Ivy actually wrote the report alone, justifying the prison research and refusing to acknowledge any parallels to the Nazis. That report later was published in JAMA and was used as a basis in subsequent decades to justify medical research on U.S. prisoners...The Green report refused to concede even a remote moral similarity between the experimental atrocities committed in Nazi concentration camps and the medical tests carried out in U.S. prisons during the war.

"Ivy's stance can be seen as a symptom of a broader refusal among U.S. medical scientists to draw lessons from their actions from the Nuremberg Medical Trial," Harkness writes. "But Andrew Ivy's posture was more than just representative; Ivy also helped to create this widespread attitude. His thoughts and deeds during the trial . . . contributed to a widespread failure among U.S. medical scientists to grapple with the difficult ethical questions about their own work that the Nuremberg Medical Trial might have raised. In effect, as Ivy assured the judges in Nuremberg that there was nothing ethically suspect about experimentation with prisoners in the U.S., he sent the same message to his U.S. colleagues." --This articles is linked to in the Green report wikipedia article

The hypocrisy of Nations and its citizens.

Reinhold Niebuhr, a preacher in the 20th century, said it best:

"Perhaps the most significant moral characteristic of a nation is its hypocrisy."

That quote should be expanded to a nation's citizens, after all isn't a nation only a reflection of its people?

"As Ed the Sock said last night, politicians are just a reflection of society. We don't want unpleasant truths, and demand to be lied to so as to feel better, and then complain when things don't work out perfectly. George Carlin also blames the American people for the problems with politicians, as they all come from American schools, churches, families, exposed to the same media and then voted on by their peers. Society creates the hated politician, who then pretends to be liked to sell you a product, just like cat food or laundry detergent."--(From: Marlon Richmond, for The Commentary )

And another quote, quite an excellent quote:

Contemporary conservatives, whenever they can be momentarily boxed into conceding one or another unsavory aspect of America’s historical record, are forever insisting that whatever they’ve admitted can be “properly” understood only when viewed as an “exception to the rule,” an “aberration,” “atypical” to the point of “anomalousness.” None have shown a readiness to address the question of exactly how many such “anomalies” might be required before they can be said to comprise “the rule” itself. When pressed, conservatives invariably retreat into a level of diversionary polemic excusable at best on elementary school playgrounds, arguing that anything “we” have done is somehow excused by allegations that “they” have done things just as bad.

Progressives, on the other hand, while acknowledging many of America’s more reprehensible features...have become quite monolithic in attributing all things negative to handy abstractions like “capitalism,” “the state,” “structural oppression,” and, yes, “the hierarchy.” Hence, they have been able to conjure what might be termed the “miracle of immaculate genocide,” a form of genocide, that is, in which—apart from a few amorphous “decision-making elites” —there are no actual perpetrators and no one who might “really” be deemed culpable by reason of complicity. The parallels between this “cutting edge” conception and the defense mounted by postwar Germans—including the Nazis at Nuremberg—are as eerie as they are obvious.

...

Noting that the (Philippine-American War) was a matter of public knowledge by 1901, Creighton Miller goes on to observe that collective “amnesia over the horrors of the war of conquest…set in early, during the summer of 1902.” He then concludes by reflecting upon how “anti-imperialists aided the process by insisting that the conflict and its attendant atrocities had been the result of a conspiracy by a handful of leaders who carried out, through deceit and subterfuge, the policy and means of expansion overseas against the will of the majority of their countrymen.”

"...anti-imperialists were letting the people off the hook and in their own way preserving the American sense of innocence. Unfortunately, the man in the street shared the dreams of world-power status, martial glory, and future wealth that would follow expansion. When the dream soured, the American people neither reacted with very much indignation, nor did they seem to retreat to their cherished political principles. If anything, they seemed to take their cues from their leader in the White House by first putting out of mind all the sordid episodes in the conquest, and then forgetting the entire war itself." --Ward Churchill

Why don't all our American children learn that the US government has tested biological, nuclear, and chemical weapons on hundreds of thousands of Americans in school?

Because we, as Americans, want to delude ourselves. We want to believe that America is a country of good.

That is why the Nazi War Crime medical experiments are taught in junior and high school, and all of the war crimes of our government, the US government, are lost down a memory hole. The vast majority of Americans are Andrew Ivys, condemning the atrocities, human rights abuses, and war crimes of our enemies, but actively subconsciously and sometimes consciously downplaying and ignoring our own atrocities, human rights abuses, and war crimes.

Why don't you focus on the good of America, why focus only on the bad?

Washington Post Reader: I'm asking you this question sincerely: Why don't you direct your hatred of George Bush toward someone more worthy of such venom, such as Osama bin Laden?

Response: I don't recall having expressed any hatred for George Bush, though I have quoted people who expressed real fury at what he has done, and even compared him to the Japanese fascists who bombed Pearl Harbor: historian Arthur Schlesinger in this case. If what you mean is that I have criticized Bush's policies more than Osama's, that's because I take for granted, like everyone else, that Osama bin Laden is a murderous thug, who the current incumbents in Washington should never have supported through the 1980s, and who should be apprehended and tried for his crimes right now -- as I've written -- and don't see any point reiterating what 100% of us believe about him. But I am a citizen of the US, and therefore share responsibility for US government policies, and assume that one of the duties of citizenship is to live up to that responsibility -- by criticizing policies one thinks are wrong, for example.--Naom Chomsky

I am a citizen of the US, and therefore share responsibility for US government policies, and assume that one of the duties of citizenship is to live up to that responsibility -- by criticizing policies one thinks are wrong, for example.

How can we, as Americans, stop repeating the same "mistakes" (which history clearly shows are not mistakes at all) if we continue to downplay and justify these war crimes?